Pages

About us

Members & staff of UKIP past & present. Committed to reforming the party by exposing the corruption and dishonesty that lies at its heart, in the hope of making it fit for purpose.
Only by removing Nigel Farage and his sycophants on the NEC can we save UKIP from electoral oblivion.
SEE: http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-statement-re-junius.html

Wednesday, 29 December 2010

Lord Pearson - the Chairman of PWS at the time and former UKIP leader - has been busy telling anyone who will listen that he 'knew nothing' about £1.2 million being purloined from his company to be used as bribes in Costa Rica.

Bit worrying that Pearson didn't even notice the loss of such a large sum of money! Just another UKIP style administrative error?

A former chief executive of a City firm who admitted paying bribes to win contracts overseas was today jailed for 21 months. Julian Messent, 50, resigned in 2006 as chief executive at insurance firm PWS – founded by former Ukip leader Lord Pearson – after admitting funnelling £1.2m worth of corrupt payments to government officials in Costa Rica between February 1999 and June 2002.

The payments were made while Messent was a director of the company's international property division and his pay was directly linked to the amount of business he won, Southwark crown court heard. In 2003, he became the company's CEO.

Sentencing him to 21 months in prison for his part in authorising 41 corrupt payments in exchange for the contracts, Judge Rivlin told him his offences justified a four- to five-year prison sentence but that he had taken into account his early guilty plea and that he was a family man of previous good character.

The judge said: "It is plain, Mr Messent, that you were deeply involved in the decision making and the process of these crimes. You orchestrated them."

He also barred Messent from serving as a company director for five years and ordered him to pay the "people and government of Costa Rica" £100,000 in compensation within 21 days.

Wednesday, 22 December 2010

Excellent news! Just how many times does Farage and his sycophants have to lose a case before they finally realise that even they are not above the law? But will she get an apology from UKIP's NEC? Will she hell!

Farage and the whole bent lot should resign and crawl back into the gutter from whence they came. They are a disgrace to the whole Euro-realist movement!

Nikki joins Alan Hardy, GLW and John West who have won legal actions against Farage's corrupt UKIP. See: Alan Hardy & GLW & John West

Nikki Sinclaire MEP has won her claim against the UK Independence Party on the grounds of Sexual Orientation Discrimination with her claim being described by Employment Judge Harper as 'well founded'. A Remedy Hearing to determine which sanction will be taken will take place on the 29th December 2010.

Ms. Sinclaire claimed her treatment by UKIP was partly due to her refusal to sit in the European Parliament with the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) Group which shares an allegiance with UKIP due to her misgivings about the 'offensive' ideology of Liga Nord and other extreme right-wing parties in the coalition. She states after her refusal, a campaign of intimidation followed from UKIP members, including Nigel Farage and Godfrey Bloom which resulted in the whip being removed and her being prevented from standing for the UK Independence Party as a parliamentary candidate in the General Election without any disciplinary procedure. Furthermore, other UKIP MEPs who refused to sit with EFD including Mike Nattrass were still allowed to represent UKIP which she believes is an example of the deep rooted homophobia within the party.

Additionally, Ms. Sinclaire who is openly gay was subjected to discrimination by senior party members such as Godfrey Bloom who labelled her a 'queer'.

The Remedy Hearing will be held at Exeter Employment Tribunal at 10.30am. Nikki states, 'I am extremely pleased with the tribunal’s decision. The treatment I received from UKIP is a sad indictment of how politics in the UK has not kept up in the 21st century. I have as much right as everyone else to express my beliefs and ask others to support my views. I should not have to suffer from such behaviour'.

Thursday, 16 December 2010

In his comment on being fined 2000 euros for shouting a Nazi slogan, Bloom referred to being 'docked his lunch money'.

Yorkshire and the Humber region - for which Godfrey Bloom is an MEP - has a high unemployment rate. We wonder what his constituents will make of his total contempt for the taxpayers who have to fund his 'lunch money' ?

From The European Voice:

Another fine mess

UKIP MEP gets hit in the wallet.

Godfrey Bloom, a member of the European Parliament for the UK Independence Party, was given a €2,100 fine by Jerzy Buzek, the Parliament's president, on Monday (13 December). It was punishment for having shouted a Nazi slogan at Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialists and Democrats group.

Buzek told the Parliament: “Given that Mr Bloom declined to apologise for his words, I have decided...to withhold seven days of allowances from Mr Bloom.”

Bloom was unrepentant and said that he would appeal against the punishment. “If they think docking my lunch-money will stop me speaking out on behalf of my constituents' welfare, they have another thing coming,” he said.

Bloom is the second UKIP MEP to be fined this year. Nigel Farage, the leader of the UKIP delegation, was fined €3,000 by Buzek in March for having compared Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, to a “damp rag”.

As a fundraising stunt, UKIP is selling special “damp rag” tea towels emblazoned with an image of Van Rompuy for £5.

Orders are shipped only within the UK and it is up to the purchaser to make them damp. Never let it be said that UKIP is troubled by the niceties of common courtesy.

Wednesday, 15 December 2010

Yesterday evening (Monday December 13th), the European Parliament's Bureau had on its agenda an increase in the allowances of MEPs. The issue was listed on the agenda as a "decision without discussion". It was simply waved through without any debate.

MEPs have been awarded a 2.3% increase in all allowances except for those relating to direct travel costs.

British MEP Nikki Sinclaire is appalled -"In an economic crisis, when tens of thousands of public sector workers are losing their jobs, and families are suffering, it is unnacceptable that well paid politicians can simply wave through increases in their already generous tax-free allowances without any discussion at all", she said. "I personally feel that it would be appropriate to freeze these payments at the very least. This is just another example of the greed and arrogance of the EU political elite".

Monday, 13 December 2010

Michael Kaminski is the controversial Polish MEP who has torn apart the ECR group - to which the British Conservatives belong - in the European Parliament. It would appear that as a result of this, 11 members of the far-right Polish Law & Justice Party are now set to join UKIP's EFD group.

Farage will, of course, see this as extra money coming in. UKIP members, however, may ask what this means for our party.

Sunday, 12 December 2010

We get REALLY sick when we hear Trevor Colman moaning about Farage's dishonesty. He moans about Nikki Sinclaire's treatment at the hands of Farage. He moans about racism in the EFD. Etc, etc, etc. So do something about it! Is 'gutless' really your middle name?

Make a stand and leave the EFD or shut up!

Was the image of a strong straight talking UKIPPER, as portrayed by Trevor, prior to his election to the EU parliament, merely an illusion?

It would seem so, given his near invisibility since being given a spoon to the EU gravy train! And as for that much acclaimed backbone - it’s been non existent.

Far from being an outspoken critic of Nigel for demanding that UKIP MEP's sit alongside some of the most reprehensible people in EU Politics, Trevor has shamefully acquiesced.

Nor has he uttered a word against the scurrilous treatment meted out to Nikki Sinclaire. Not for Trevor the principled actions of Mike Nattrass, he's far too comfortable within the EFD!

And as for tremulous Trevor becoming a rallying point against the Spiv’s plan to drag UKIP into a pan EU coalition, dream on people!

Sadly, the only thing Trevor is interested in nowadays, is Trevor. He's raking in the cash and looking down his nose at all you who gave him the chance, whilst his bank balance grows by the day!

What I don't understand though is why UKIP members in the SW still give him such an easy ride. He really doesn't deserve it! AE

Wednesday, 8 December 2010

Please support the Daily Express' campaign to get Britain out the EU. Click here: LINK

We sincerely hope that The Express does not allow Farage to hijack the campaign. The last thing they need is that spiv using it to get even more publicity for himself! Farage is driven by ego and a desire to make lots of money out of the EU. His patriotism is a sham. When has he EVER donated large sums of money to the anti-EU cause? The answer is NEVER! He has done very well out of being an MEP. So why would he want to see that Gravy Train end?

Tuesday, 7 December 2010

Justin Adams has been remanded in custody until the 30th of this month. This concerns the allegations that he threatened Farage and a crash investigator. See: LINK

UKIP treachery

Anyone who still thinks that UKIP's corrupt leaders are fighting to get Britain out of the EU should consider this act of treachery from October. It is worth repeating as some blinkered UKIPPERS still believe that Farage and his chumps are doing a good job!

Ukip MEPs have again disgraced themselves. This time - and not for the first time - they have demonstrated that the parliamentary party is no more than an indolent but well-paid establishment steam vent. For on Wednesday 20th October, Ukip MEPs committed yet another unbelievable act of treachery to their nation.

How much more of this will UKIP's members tolerate???

This latest scandal relates to the EU Parliament's position on the 2011 draft budget as modified by the Council (all sections 12699/2010 - C7-0202/2010/2001(BUD)).

Amendment 17 by Goram Farm MEP and colleagues, on behalf of the S&D Group, moved as follows (wording in quotation marks refers to the new text within the amendment):

Quote

Motion for resolution, para 4:

4 Considers that "following" the entry into force of the TFEU, which strengthens EU policies and creates new fields of competence - notably Common Foreign and Security Policy, competitiveness and innovation, "energy policy", space, tourism, the fight against climate change, "sport and youth", social policy, energy policy, justice and home affairs - "the European Union should be endowed with the necessary financial means to attain its objectives" and therefore requires both branches of the budgetary authority to be coherent and consistent as regards increased financial capacities.

Unquote.

Quite apart from expanding the wording of the motion, to embrace "energy policy, sport and youth", the motion includes these words:

"..the European Union should be endowed with the necessary financial means to attain its objectives...".

So here we have Ukip's MEPs voting to equip the EU with the financial means (at UK taxpayers' expense) to meet its objectives of 'ever closer union'.

For heaven's sake, even the damnable Tories voted against this amendment, as did Nikki Sinclaire, Morten Messerschmidt and several others from the EFD (to which Ukip are affiliated), along with Andrew Brons and Nick Griffin of the BNP. Even Bloom, voted against. Perhaps he was sober.

Here's the list of the traitorous Ukip MEPs who voted in favour:

Stuart Agnew, Marta Andreasen, Gerard Batten, John Bufton, Derek Clark, William Dartmouth, Nigel Farage and last but not least, the odious Paul Nuttall.

By committing this act of treachery these MEP's thereby joined with the Socialists, Greens, Liberals, hard Left and Federalist parties of Europarl.

David Bannerman, Trevor Colman and Mike Nattrass were absent, so avoided being tarnished with the stench of collective treachery!

Wait for Farage to claim that he, and his nodding donkeys could not bring themselves to vote in the same category as Nikki Sinclaire, Morten Messerschmidt and the two BNP MEPs. Or maybe the Massa will dream up an even more implausible excuse!!! Watch this space!

Note: confirmation of the above may be found at the EU Parliament website, where links will be found to Wednesday's voting and the results of the individual votes thereon.

Monday, 6 December 2010

Don't forget that Nigel Farage, the odious Paul Nuttall, Trevor Colman, Gerard Batten, David Bannerman, Stuart Agnew, Derek Clark, Godfrey Bloom, John Bufton, Marta Andreasen & William Dartmouth are more than happy to sit with fascists in the EFD.

Nikki Sinclaire and Mike Nattrass voted with their feet and left the EFD. They both cited the racism of certain EFD MEPs as one of the reasons for leaving the group.

UKIP's EFD: Hitler would be proud of them all!

One of Nigel's biggest pals in the EFD is one Mario Borghezio.

Borghezio has multiple convictions for racially motivated violence, including an attack on a 12 year old child in 1991. In April 2000, during a regional election campaign, Lega Nord members chanted Borghezio's controversial "Prayer of the Gypsy", with its reference to the gassing of "nomads". He has also been filmed more recently explaining to a group of young fascists the need to infiltrate "mainstream" political organisations.

Borghezio has been linked with the neo-Nazi terrorist group "New Order". However, in a recent interview with Italian journalist Claudio Sabelli Fioretti, Borghezio admitted to his involvement with the Belgian Nazi Jean Thiriart, the founder of Young Europe, a group that espoused a united Europe "from Vladivostok to Dublin", organised in accordance with National Socialist principles.

"Lo stavo in un movimento rivale di Ordine Nuovo. Si chiamava Giovane Europa. Il leader era Jean Thiriart" he stated. This translates as: "I was in a rival movement of New Order. It was called Young Europe. The leader was Jean Thiriart".

Thiriart, a Belgian Nazi, was imprisoned after WW2 for his wartime activities, which included hunting down and killing resistance workers in occupied Europe. Thiriart trained under SS Lt Col Otto "Scarface" Skorzeny, and maintained strong links with him after his release from prison.

In fact, Skorzeny has been revealed to have had partial control over Young Europe at the time when Borghezio was a member.

Skorzeny was involved initially in Operation Werwolf, the Nazi resistance movement, and then subsequently in neo-Nazi terrorist groups across Europe. Evidence has emerged showing that Young Europe operated a number of paramilitary training camps, and that it was on the instructions of Skorzeny in the 1960s that these camps were closed down.

Associates of Thiriart were involved in an attempted Nazi coup in Belgium in 1973, and papers obtained this summer from Belgian police have helped researchers to prove ongoing links between a number of activists.

Given Borghezio's open support for fascism, and his record of racially motivated violence - his last arrest was as recently as 2007 - it is no wonder that he has started to attract the interests of prominent anti-fascists across the EU.

So why not contact your UKIP MEP and ask them why they are MORE than happy to sit with such scum?

Sunday, 5 December 2010

I can reveal that last week, whilst MEPs were in Strasbourg, a delegation from the European Commission paid a visit to London for hush-hush high level discussions with the British government concerning the perilous state of the Euro.

The same week, on Thursday, the heads of the Commission's Directorates were given orders not to discuss the Euro, or to speculate on its future, under any circumstances.

Just how bad is the economic crisis in the EU? Worse than the Commission would have us believe, it would appear. In the last hour it has been announced that three member states have had to apply for aid in order to deal with rising unemployment.

EU adjustment Fund aid worth more than €8.7 million for workers in Spain, Poland and the Netherlands was approved by Parliament's Budgets Committee this morning.

In total, 2,312 redundant workers (retail trade, car and construction sectors) in Spain, 779 former workers in the car and ship building industry in Poland and 613 ex-employees in the ICT sector in the Netherlands are set to receive support.

The Spanish authorities applied for aid to unemployed workers in three regions: Valencia (several firms in the construction and textile sector), Catalonia (the Lear company, producing electrical equipment for cars) and Aragón (several firms in the retail trade sector).

The two Polish applications concern the Wielkopolskie province (two firms in the car industry) and the H.Cegielski-Poznań company, the only Polish manufacturer of marine engines, plus its suppliers.

The Dutch application is for two ICT companies, Getronics and HP, in the region of Noord Holland.

Thursday, 2 December 2010

There has been a lot of speculation in UKIPPER circles after it emerged that the pilot of the plane which crashed with Farage on board had been charged with threatening to kill him.

We can confirm that Mr Adams at the first opportunity advised Farage that he was heavily insured and expected Farage to capitalise on this fact.

Adams was also far from happy with the delay of an official report exonerating him. See the report here: LINK

Last Friday, Farage claimed that he was being harassed.

We would not be remotely surprised if Justin Adams had been verbally 'difficult'. But crash victims can react this way. After all, he had been within minutes of plunging to his possible death!

However, the suggestion by the usual suspects that GLW was involved in encouraging Mr Adams to harass Farage is absolutely ridiculous! See: LINK

This particular saga reminds us of another death threat made during a row. It was made by a certain Nigel Farage to a certain John de Roek during a row.

Now what did Nigel say about him?

"For as little as £ 1,000, I could have him killed and his body disposed of."

So now Nigel knows how it feels!

Perhaps Mr Adams should raise this interesting fact during his trial!

So what does Nigel now think about his own threat to kill? We would love to know!

Here is a report from The Guardian concerning Mr Adams and his alleged threats against Farage:

The pilot of the plane that crashed with Ukip leader Nigel Farage on board has appeared in court charged with threatening to kill the politician in a separate incident.

Justin Adams, 45, also faces a charge of threatening to kill an air accident official who investigated the crash, which happened on the day of the general election.

He appeared before Oxford magistrates yesterday and was remanded in custody. He spoke only to confirm his name, age and address.

Adams was arrested by Thames Valley police on Sunday at his home in Buckland, near Faringdon, Oxfordshire, after calls were made alleging that on Friday he threatened to kill Farage and that on Sunday he similarly threatened a Civil Aviation Authority investigator. He is due to appear at Oxford crown court on 7 December.

Adams was at the controls of the Polish-made Wilga 35A light aircraft which came down in Hinton-in-the-Hedges airfield in Northamptonshire. A report by the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) found the crash was caused by the campaign banner the plane was trailing. Ropes used to tow the banner, which read "Vote for your country: Vote Ukip" had become caught on the tail of the aircraft, forcing it to nose-dive, said the report.

Farage managed to walk from the scene but suffered broken ribs, bruised lungs and facial injuries. Adams was trapped in the mangled wreckage. Seriously injured, he remained conscious and was airlifted to hospital, where he is understood to have undergone several operations.

The pilot, who recently moved to Oxfordshire from Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, ran a firm called Sky Banners.

At the time of the crash Farage was engaged in an unsuccessful attempt to oust the Commons speaker, John Bercow, from his Buckingham seat. Having led Ukip from 2006 to 2009, he had stepped down to concentrate on his election campaign but after coming third with just 8,401 votes he resumed leadership of the party on November 5.

Following publication of the crash report, the politician said: "I think the conclusion is the best for everyone. It was an accident, there we are, these things happen in life.

"I give thanks to the fact I got through it. I have never liked flying – always hated it, although I have done a fair bit of it as an MEP.

"Part of the flight on May 6 was an attempt to challenge my demons. Look how that ended up."

He added: "I wish the pilot the best of luck in his recovery. I know he's had several operations and was not in a good way at all."

Wednesday, 1 December 2010

The little chap was put on the carpet this morning by the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek. It was not, apparently, a pleasant experience for either of them. UKIP - sorry, EFD - staff have been trying desperately to spin the series of events that have led to UKIP being slammed across the world as "ya-boo hooligans", but even the most loyal of them are now showing signs of having had more than enough. "We came here to get Britain out of the EU", one of them said rather too loudly in the hearing of journalists, "not to embarrass the whole bloody country".

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

So Clark cancelled the East Midlands meeting. See: LINK. How very, very convenient. But at least Clark can avoid answering awkward questions about OLAF’s ‘interest’ in him. And he can also avoid a few awkward questions about ‘vanishing funds' and 'the disappearance of new membership fees’.

We understand that Clark was less than impressed to see that Junius had published details of the forthcoming meeting on this blog.

How sad that Diane Kelly has resigned as Regional Treasurer. No loss there. She failed to attend committee meetings and has been described to us as “about as much use as a chocolate fireguard”.

How we laughed after recently receiving a letter from Farage. It's a standard letter which was sent out to every member of the party.

The first line had us in stitches "Thank you for placing your trust in me again as your Leader".

Nigel should really check the results of the leadership election. We don't recall him getting 100% of the vote!

Nigel is trying to get UKIPPERS to give him even more money! What a pity that Nigel is not prepared to donate ANY money himself. Now what did happen to the £211,000 that 'vanished' from UKIP's South East accounts? And what did you do with the £2 million you claimed as expenses? And what about all the money raised by the Ashford call centre?

Now what did Mike Nattrass recently say?

"Do you know how much money Nigel has contributed to this party...next to nothing."

Sunday, 28 November 2010

Derek Clark still denies being under investigation by OLAF. He claims – as does Ransom - that the whole thing is a fraud. Lies!

Clark IS under investigation by OLAF for alleged misuse of his allowances. They are also interested in a former regional chairman who used his own bank account to handle certain regional finances WITHOUT the knowledge of the Regional Committee.

It is amusing to note that even Farage would like Clark to stand down as an MEP. He regards Clark as too old and would like to see Steve Allison replace him as UKIP's MEP in the region. Mr Allison is more than happy to see this happen!

We at Junius note that the East Midlands will be holding a Regional Committee in Newark on Monday.

Ken Browne is still pushing for Clark to resign. Indeed, he has held several meeting in the Talbot Hotel to discuss this and ‘other matters’ relating to the East Midlands. The total collapse of the branch system in UKIP East Midlands is of particular concern to many UKIPPERS in the region.

Saturday, 27 November 2010

Earlier today I mentioned that Mike Nattrass had been absent from the final vote of yesterday at the Strasbourg plenary session of Europarl due to an issue concerning concerning the EU directive on the size of battery hen cages.

One of my contacts within the EFD group has now told me that their is a very serious issue here, one that will grossly effect the viability of the UK's egg producing sector.

Some of you will recall that the EU introduced Directive on the minimum size of the cages used by battery hen farmers. The Directive was to become effective as from January 1st, 2012.

The EU forced the UK to comply, so UK producers have spent millions (I'm aware that one producer who has invested 10 million plus) on these better conditions for chickens.

But now, the EU, having given member countries 10 years in which to comply, has now stated that those who have done, SOD ALL, should get more time to comply.

Why does this matter? Well take the Spanish egg producers. Almost to a man they have not complied with the Directive, and will now be allowed to continue to use those nasty little cages filled with pecked chickens (and salmonella) for an indefinite period. In bald economic terms this means that continental produces, such as those from Spain, will be able to undercut UK producers by up to 15p per dozen, maybe more, because they have not invested in the the capital outlay (bank overdraft) to update their infrastructure.

So yet again I find myself saying well done to Mike Nattrass (I'm given to understand that Nikki Sinclaire has been working with MN on this matter).

Given all of this, the question that needs to be asked is this: Why is it that the two West Midlands MEP's who no longer sit amongst Spivboy's seedy EFD group are the ones raising this issue? After all, the majority of UKIP's MEP's represent rural areas of the country so why have they not been jumping up and down in outrage at this situation. Two of those MEP's, Dartmouth and Trevor Coleman, are based in Devon and are supposed to represent the SW region. And, as everybody knows, the SW is one of Britain's premier agricultural areas. Wake up you two sleepwalkers (and others), and give your constituents a little actual support. Just for once! How about asking Mike Nattrass how to go about it, or even, what you can do to help!

[I could ask Spivboy why, yet again, he sees fit to ignore an issue of vital importance to our farming sector. But to be honest it would only be a waste of time. Wouldn't it Spivboy???? BTW, it seems that the reason for Spivboy missing that important vote on fisheries, was because he had put an appearance on the BBC (Any Questions?) before his duties to Britain's beleaguered fishermen!?]

Oh to see a little backbone amongst the other Ukip MEP's. For as things stand, only Mike and Nikki seem to have thrown off their apathy and fear. You could say, Whilst the other Turkeys were voting for Christmas Mike and Nikki were helping the chickens vote forbigger cages.

Thursday, 25 November 2010

Wednesday, 24 November 2010

Godfrey Bloom just can't resist making an ass of himself. Making derogatory remarks about women, applauding the bombing of a Greenpeace ship, peeing in hotel corridors, making drunken speeches in the EU Parliament, getting banned from the Mansion House, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Each time Bloom opens his mouth the Eurorealist cause is brought into further disrepute!

Bloom was immediately expelled from the parliamentary chamber in Strasbourg after his angry outburst on Wednesday.

His attack came during a debate on the 2011 EU budget when Schulz demanded more power for the EU and accused UKIP of effectively trying to "destroy" the EU.

During his speech, Bloom intervened, saying one of the Nazis' most-repeated political slogans. "Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" (One People, One Nation, One Leader).

Schulz protested and when parliament's vice president Edward McMillan-Scott demanded an apology, Bloom replied, "The views of Herr Schulz make the case. He is an undemocratic fascist."

MEPs were asked if they wanted to expel Bloom and, after a short, delay in agreed to walk out.

MEP Barry Madlener, from the Dutch Freedom Party, intervened and said, "The way the rules have been applied has been uneven. Schulz called a colleague a fascist, but no sanctions were applied to him."

Schulz was complaining about the British position on an agreement between German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Nicolas Sarkozy about treaty changes in return for a lower increase in EU budget.

He said the UKIP position was destroying the EU. Pointing at and criticising the eurosceptic EFD group who were clapping at this, he said, "These people, if they had their way would destroy the EU."

Later Bloom said, "Schulz is an unrepentant Euro nationalist. He wants one currency, one EU state, one EU people. The commission has already taken control of the economies of Ireland and Greece, no doubt others to follow.

"These Euro nationalists are a danger to democracy. These people are fanatics. People have got to wake up to this fact. My father as a spitfire pilot fought for freedom against Nazi domination of Europe. As an MEP I will fight against the destruction of democracy across Europe."

Reaction to the furore was swift with UKIP leader Nigel Farage saying, "Whereas we accept that Bloom's jibe may have been rash and inflammatory we fully support his sentiments about the formation of an undemocratic Europe."

UK Socialist deputy Richard Howitt said, "Comparing a German MEP to Hitler is an absolute and utter disgrace, Bloom must be made to withdraw these remarks before he is allowed back into the parliament, it is nothing but hate mongering and shames the memory of all those who died at Hitler's bloodstained hands.

"The far right links between the BNP and UKIP were tangible today as the BNP gave Bloom a standing ovation".

Glenis Willmott, Labour's leader in parliament, said, "Once again UKIP is trying to brew up a storm to make headlines back home. Godfrey Bloom's actions are an insult to all those who have fought against fascism."

Later, the leaders of the main political groups, including the EPP, ALDE, Greens/EFA, ECR and GUE/NGL, issued a statement saying they "firmly condemn the insulting remarks directed at Martin Schulz."

It said, "We can never accept that MEPs insult their colleagues in a way that recalls the worst hours of our history."

"In this time of serious economic and social crisis affecting the whole of the EU solidarity and dignity are more than ever needed from the representatives of the peoples of Europe."

UKIP MEP has been ejected from the European Parliament after directing a Nazi slogan at a German colleague.

Godfrey Bloom said "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer" - one people, one empire, one leader - as Martin Schulz was making a speech.

He was ordered out of the chamber and will face disciplinary measures.

Mr Bloom told the BBC he stood by his words, describing the leader of the socialist group in the parliament, as "a national socialist".

Mr Bloom made the heckle as Mr Schulz, a member of Germany's Social Democratic Party and leader of the socialist bloc in the Parliament, was speaking during a debate on the economic crisis in the Irish Republic.

Clamour

European Parliament president Jerzy Buzek, chairing the debate, looked set to carry on but jeers rose up and the French centre-right leader in the Parliament Joseph Daul challenged Mr Bloom to apologise.

He said: "We are in a democracy, this is a democratic era and I would ask you to make an official apology. This is not acceptable - I'm almost surprised you didn't add concentration camps to the equation."

The UKIP MEP stood up and replied: "The views expressed by Herr Schulz meet the case - he is an undemocratic fascist."

Amid a growing clamour from MEPs, Mr Buzek then asked Mr Bloom to leave the chamber.

Mr Bloom did so - only to return later to take part in a vote, when he clashed with replacement chairman Edward McMillan-Scott, a former Conservative member, who asked MEPs for a show of hands on whether Mr Bloom should be expelled and the majority agreed.

Mr Schulz, in a personal statement, dismissed Mr Bloom's "insult" saying "You have to have a certain degree of passion to your insults to affect me."

But he thanked MEPs from different parties for their messages of support, which he said was a demonstration of the democratic values that the "vast majority" of MEPs shared.

But UKIP leader Nigel Farage told MEPs that his eurosceptic group was angry about the "uneven" application of the Parliament's rules.

'Spitfire pilot'

He claimed Mr Schulz had accused UKIP members and their fellow eurosceptics of "opening the door to fascism" by opposing the Lisbon treaty and that the co-president of the Green MEPs, Danny Cohn-Bendit had called them "mentally ill".

"Mr Schulz regularly calls people fascists and when he is called one the member in question is asked to leave. That isn't right. That isn't fair."

Mr McMillan-Scott rejected his complaint and suspended the sitting for five minutes, while Mr Bloom and a small group of MEPs were escorted from the chamber, to applause from some members.

Commenting afterwards, Mr Farage said: "Whereas we accept that Mr Bloom's jibe in the Parliament may have been rash and inflammatory, we fully support his sentiments about the formation of an undemocratic Europe."

Speaking afterwards Mr Bloom commented: "These Euro nationalists are a danger to democracy. These people are fanatics. People have got to wake up to this fact.

"My father, as a Spitfire pilot, fought for freedom against Nazi domination of Europe. As an MEP, I will fight against the destruction of democracy across Europe."

'National embarrassment'

But his jibe did not go down well British MEPs from other parties.

Labour group leader Glenis Willmott said: "Once again, Ukip is trying to brew up a storm to make headlines back home. Godfrey Bloom's actions are an insult to all those who have fought against fascism."

Liberal Democrat group leader Fiona Hall described Mr Bloom as a "national embarrassment".

It is not the first time that Mr Bloom - who represents Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire - has courted controversy with his comments.

He has argued that man-made global warming is a myth and praised the sinking of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in 1985, in which one man died.

In 2004, he said no "self-respecting" small business owner would employ a woman of child-bearing age.

Spivboy, who is rumoured to sit on the Europarl Fisheries Committee - a position of which he boasts about on his profile at the European Parliamentary website - was, yet again, absent from a debate on fishing!

But get this, he is on record as having been in the Parliament building (well at least he signed on for his daily attendance allowance).

Thankfully, Gerard Batten spoke out about the CFP during the debate.

But not a cheap from Spivboy of course who was, um, elsewhere. Sadly my EFD source was unable to say why Spivboy was, yet again, conspicuous by his absence!

Ye gods, even, Stewart Agnew, has woken up, and he led a delegation to see the Fisheries Minister, Richard Benyon, earlier today -

Monday, 22 November 2010

We note with interest Ms Annabelle 'Bury Me in Y-Shaped Coffin' Fuller's re-emergence in UKIPPER circles. She currently manages Farage's Facebook site - as well as providing Nigel with more 'personal services' - and is set to represent the London end of Nigel's new pan-European Alliance.

We can well understand Nigel's desire to keep her close. She knows where all the bodies are buried and could provide a certain newspaper with enough juicy stories about Farage's sexual preferences to keep them happy for a very, very long time. Indeed, we understand that one paper has already offered her a large sum to spill the beans on her 'friend'.

Sunday, 21 November 2010

One of the most Europhile of all Tories is Councillor Tony Brown, from the London Borough of Ealing. Make no mistake, this man is the very last member of his party who would ever consider supporting UKIP's position on the EU.

It was therefore something of a surprise to see him lunching on the 18th with.... none other than David Bannerman!

Having failed to ingratiate himself with the eurosceptic wing of the Tory party in Brussels, is is DB now setting his sights elsewhere?

And more on Farage's Pan-European Party

UKIP's drift towards the far-right first became evident in 2006, when Nigel Farage's office in Brussels issued a statement supporting Vlaams Belang, the German NPD, the Austrian Freedom Party. Apparently they are not neo-nazis at all - just good ol' eurosceptics!

In 2004, the presence of the Greek far-right politician Georgios Karatzaferis in the Independence & Democracy group attracted the attention of the Simon Weisenthal Centre - an interest that has been rekindled this summer.

But now Farage's new project - a pan european political party - has really brought the filth out of the woodwork. In a letter circulated by Sharon Bonici (paid by Godfrey Bloom), she announces the involvement in the party of the 'Sweden Democrats'. SD former Chairman Anders Klarstrom is typical of the good ol' eurosceptics that will be sitting alongside Mssrs Bloom, Farage, and whoever else Farage orders to sign up to bring him in some more money.

Klarstrom was a pivotal figure in the delightfully named Nazi Nordic Reich Party!

Saturday, 20 November 2010

So now many, many more people know just how 'democratic' UKIP really is!

UKIP has been exposed in the north's best selling newspaper as a party where the rights of individual members are treated with total contempt. UKIP has become a mini version of the EU!

Arnott should resign immediately - along with Gordon Parkin - for their disgraceful treatment of Mr Hardy. See:LINK.

Arnott has been exposed as a fool and a liar. But what is new?

Our readers may recall that Arnott - along with Peter Reeve - represented UKIP when John West took them to court over the You Tube posting of his MEP interview. Their inept performance in Ipswich County Court resulted in UKIP losing the case. See: LINK

Gordon Parkin. If he had two brain cells to rub together, they'd die of loneliness

Jonathan 'Frightened Rabbit' Arnott. It moves, it talks but the lights went out a very, very long time ago.

If Arnott and Parkin had a brain cell between them, they'd be dangerous!

From The Northern Echo

Party tried to expel ex-BNP member

By Joe Willis

A TEACHER has won a legal battle with the UK Independence Party (UKIP) over an attempt to use his former membership of the British National Party to expel him.

Judge Peter Fox ruled that UKIP and the party’s Stockton branch chairman Gordon Parkin acted unlawfully when they tried to throw out member Alan Hardy.

The High Court in Middlesbrough heard how Mr Hardy, the branch’s former press officer, was initially expelled after falling out with Mr Parkin, who stood for UKIP in the Stockton North constituency at the last general election.

In his ruling, which declared Mr Hardy’s expulsion as null and void, Judge Fox summed up the relationship between the two men.

He said Mr Hardy, from Stockton, accused Mr Parkin of being “incompetent, dishonest and self-seeking”, while Mr Parkin accused Mr Hardy of being dishonest and so disruptive that it was impossible for the branch to function.

The row came to a head when Mr Hardy asked Mr Parkin to resign as branch chairman.

An argument between the two men resulted in UKIP Stockton branch being temporarily banned from the venue it used for meetings.

In September last year, Mr Parkin wrote to Mr Hardy saying he should no longer attend branch meetings.

In January, when Mr Hardy tried to renew his membership, Judge Fox found that UKIP general secretary Jonathan Arnott contrived to exclude him from the party on the grounds that he was a former BNP member, despite party leaders being aware of his past when he joined.

Mr Hardy, from Stockton, who is teaching English as a foreign language in Saudi Arabia, last night welcomed the ruling.

He said: “This has been about accountability. Gordon Parkin, aided by the UKIP hierarchy, now knows he cannot treat those who may disagree with him like dirt.

“Indeed, in light of the outcome of this case, I think he should do the decent thing and resign his membership.”

UKIP executive chairman Steve Crowther told The Northern Echo that the party was very unhappy with the judgement and would be reviewing its position.

He said: “UKIP is a tolerant, inclusive and non-sectarian organisation and it is important to our members that those values are maintained.”

Thursday, 18 November 2010

John West beat them in court. Greg Lance-Watkins beat them in court. They were fined for accepting illegal donations from Alan Bown. They treat Nikki Sinclaire like dirt and then seem surprised when she refuses to let them get away with it.

We applaud Mr Hardy's victory against UKIP. It is interesting to note that Farage and the NEC had no problem with the fact that Mr Hardy was ex-BNP.

From the Judgement:

Therefore I conclude that the NEC did consider Mr Hardy’s individual case in March and decided that his former membership of the BNP was no obstacle to his membership of UKIP continuing. That is hardly surprising in view of the warmth with which Mr Hardy had been welcomed into the UKIP fold from the BNP not least from Mr Farage.

So Farage hates the BNP? We think not. After all, he is more than happy to sit with fascists in the EFD!

Would you trust Farage's UKIP to run the country when they can't even respect the laws of the land? Indeed, they have nothing but contempt for the laws of the land!

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEEN’S BENCH DIVISIONMIDDLESBROUGH DISTRICT REGISTRY

CASE NOS. 9MB03865AND 0MB00631

BETWEEN

ALAN HARDY (CLAIMANT)

AND

GORDON H. PARKIN (DEFENDANT)

……….

ALAN HARDY (CLAIMANT)

AND

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY LIMITED (DEFENDANTS)

JUDGMENT

1. This is a consolidated action for damages and for a declaration that the Claimant’s purported expulsion from membership of the United Kingdom Independence Party is null and void.

2. As I shall explain, the narrative of the matter of complaint covers two episodes; hence two actions until they were consolidated by Order. The first episode concerns the actions of Mr Gordon Parkin who at all material times was, as he remains, Branch Chairman of the Stockton on Tees Branch of UKIP as I shall call the Party; the second episode concerns the actions by officers of the Party in their central organisation. Because the Claimant has at no time been represented by solicitor or counsel and because the point emerged only in the course of the Defendants’ counsel’s closing submissions I allow the Claimant to add as a defendant in the consolidated action Stockton on Tees Branch of UKIP. The reason for and significance of this will become apparent.

3. Essentially this is a hard fought political dispute in Stockton on Tees between Mr Hardy, supported by others some of whom have given evidence before me, and Mr Parkin the constitutionally elected Branch Chairman, no doubt with his supporters and apparently backed by the central organisation. In a nutshell Mr Hardy accuses Mr Parkin of being incompetent; dishonest and self seeking in his political ambitions so that the interests of UKIP are thereby ill served. Mr Parkin denies all this but accuses Mr Hardy of being so disruptive a member that it was impossible for the business of the branch to be done, as well as dishonesty in his attempts to unseat Mr Parkin from his position. Thankfully none of these matters is the concern of this Court which is able to determine the legal issues between the parties on a factual basis virtually of common ground, by which I mean an undisputed history of events and correspondence. I would add however, before turning to such uncontroversial territory, that having seen and heard Mr Hardy as his own advocate in these proceedings as well as a witness, and Mr Parkin as a witness, and given that the dispute between the two men is political, a subject invariably both powerful and sensitive in its nature, it is not difficult to see how temperamentally they could never work together in harmony. Mr Hardy is forceful of manner and frequently irrelevant in speech: Mr Parkin is quietly dogged and determined.

4. The following is, however, not in dispute and page numbering is with reference to the agreed trial bundle. For some time until he resigned in June 2005 Mr Hardy had been a member of the British National Party (BNP). In February 2007 his application to join UKIP was accepted. He became a member of the Stockton branch and was quickly active as such becoming its Press Officer as well as putting himself forward as a potential parliamentary candidate. Although unsuccessful in this latter ambition(Section 2 page 29) he received the commendation of UKIP’s head office in the former (Section 2, page 35). The significance of this factually is the actual knowledge which head office officials had of Mr Hardy’s former membership of the BNP, as also had Mr Nigel Farage MEP as may be seen from his correspondence with Mr Hardy(Section 2, page 26).

5. The date for membership renewal on payment of the appropriate subscription was 1st February each year. Mr Hardy’s membership was renewed in 2008 and 2009. Yet by this latter date all was not well within the Stockton branch. Indeed trouble had been brewing for some time. As early as 8th November 2007 Mr Hardy resigned his post as Press Officer and by letter of that date (Section 1, page 26.43) wrote to Mr Parkin that he would not serve “the branch in any post so long as you remain as chairman”. At some time during the winter of 2008/2009 a dispute arose as to whether Mr Parkin had distributed leaflets to each house or sufficiently on the Roseworth housing estate so that Mr Hardy and his supporter Mr Himmelblau conducted a partial enquiry door to door which in turn Mr Parkin dubbed inadequate and misleading. This issue led to cross accusations of lying.

6. On 8th January 2009 as Mr Himmelblau told me, and I accept, he and Mr Hardy met Mr Parkin by arrangement at the Central Library, Stockton and on grounds of incompetence and the fact that the membership was not increasing in size from a handful or so they asked Mr Parkin to stand down as branch chairman. He refused.

7. Branch meetings were approximately monthly. That for January 2009 was minuted (Section 1 page. 26.3) and held on 20th. That for February 2009 was held on 17th and as it was not minuted there is no record of the minutes for January being approved. There is only the notation (Section 1, page 26.7), “Minutes verified by GP before issue”. GP plainly refers to Mr Parkin and his perspective of that meeting and Mr Hardy’s part in it is clear. Worse was to follow because on 17th February the caretaker of the hall hired for the meeting of that date broke the meeting up and asked everyone present to leave the building on account of raised voices. Mr Hardy and Mr Parkin had each called the other a liar. The row was of such proportion that the building’s owners did not permit the Branch to return for a period of months.

8. On 10th March Mr Parkin wrote to all branch members (Section 1, page 26.20) that “Due to high campaign activity and the loss of our meeting venue we have decided that there will be no branch meeting this month……….. . Matters that were raised at our last meeting and are of concern to members are being dealt with and a report will be issued as soon as is practical”. Mr Parkin told me that “ we “ meant “I”.

9. From 29th March to 26th June Mr Hardy was in Saudi Arabia, teaching. Meanwhile, Mr Parkin having consulted a Mr Allison, UKIP’s regional organiser who had in turn passed the problem to Head Office, the Party Chairman Mr Paul Nuttall wrote to Mr Hardy on 30th March (Section 1, page 26.33) inviting him to meet the General Secretary, Mr Arnott, and himself on 14th April. Naturally Mr Hardy did not and could not either receive that letter in time or attend the meeting. Yet from his reply (Section 1, page 80A) it seems very doubtful that he would have gone if he could. Of significance however, in my view is the reply Mr Hardy received from Head Office (Section 2 page 33), “I have decided that this office had better things to do and henceforth will have no further dealings with you”.

10. Upon his return from Saudi Arabia and on 4th July Mr Hardy e-mailed the new Branch Secretary, Dr. Goyns (Section 1, page 26.56) asking him to telephone him. On 8th July Dr Goyns replied (Section 1, page 26.57) that on Mr Parkin’s advice, “it would be inappropriate for me to meet with you”. On 24th August Mr Hardy was writing to Mr Parkin (Section 1, page 26.18). On 11th September Mr Parkin wrote to Mr Hardy (Section 1, page 79), “I feel it is time I must set this matter to rest…..I have decided on the following actions …. you will no longer be permitted to attend any branch meeting of which I am Chairman”. His reasons were that Mr Hardy had brought the January and February “meetings into disrepute”, that at the February meeting his “actions and outbursts created an embarrassing situation which led to the eviction from that venue and the prevention of our return “, that he and his “colleagues decided to withdraw your support from UKIP in January of this year at both local and national levels” and that in his, Mr Parkin’s, opinion that was disloyal. He concluded, “I strongly recommend that you withdraw from the membership of the party forthwith…… . I have advised the branch secretary not to enter into any further communications with you…… . Should you wish to take the matter further then your only option left is to go through head office”. When he wrote this letter Mr Parkin told me he was aware that Mr Hardy had by then returned from Saudi Arabia. From the e-mails between Mr Hardy and Dr. Goyns it seems to me that Mr Parkin must have known that from early July.

11. There the matter lay until membership renewal time came round. Mr Hardy was not sent a renewal form from Head Office as was usual. He wrote on 30th January 2010 and 11th February (Section 2, pages 7 and 8) sending his subscription. On 19th February Lisa Duffy, Party Director, replied (Section 2 page 16) that when Mr Hardy left the BNP “to rejoin UKIP the National Executive Committee was not informed – as it should have been – and it was therefore unable to consider your re-application. This was an administrative error …… . In the circumstances I feel that before your membership is renewed the NEC must be given a proper opportunity to fully consider the matter. I am therefore referring this to the next meeting of the NEC and in the meantime am returning your £10 membership renewal cheque”. On 23rd March Mrs Duffy wrote again (Section 2 page 17) that the NEC had considered the matter and “would have no objection to your membership should you choose to apply”.

12. This is at serious variance with the content of a memorandum dated 8th September (Section 2, page 54) from Mr Arnott, UKIP General Secretary, addressed “to whom it may concern”. Its first paragraph plainly refers to Mrs Duffy’s letter of 23rd March. It has not been suggested it refers to any other. Her letter makes no mention of internal disciplinary proceedings being commenced immediately upon Mr Hardy accepting her invitation to re-apply and I have received no evidence that he was so informed. The second paragraph about there being 3 months grace for renewal and that thereafter “Mr Hardy would be treated in the same way as a new membership application” appears again without there having been evidence of any general notice of such a rule or specific notice of it to Mr Hardy. It is to be noted this document is dated only weeks before this hearing. The third paragraph needs citing in full: “It is the policy of the UK Independence Party not to accept membership applications from former BNP members and activists; any new application for membership from Mr Hardy would therefore now be rejected on those grounds”. Mrs Duffy, whose evidence I find to be honest and accurate, tells me that the position is as follows. In November 2009 when she was a member of the NEC, which was until she assumed her present full time post as Party Director, that body made a policy decision that henceforth applications to join UKIP from people who had been members of the BNP should be referred “to the NEC for approval”. This was because there had been “infiltration” from a date in 2008. I infer she meant deliberate infiltration as fifth columnists in order to disrupt the work or besmirch the reputation of UKIP. This would be consistent with her letters to Mr Hardy in March the contents of which she tells me, and I accept, are true.

Therefore I conclude that the NEC did consider Mr Hardy’s individual case in March and decided that his former membership of the BNP was no obstacle to his membership of UKIP continuing. That is hardly surprising in view of the warmth with which Mr Hardy had been welcomed into the UKIP fold from the BNP not least from Mr Farage. There has, moreover been not the slightest suggestion made during this hearing that Mr Hardy has turned his political coat once again. I have no choice therefore but to hold Mr Arnott’s memorandum as a deliberate contrivance to exclude Mr Hardy from membership of UKIP and to do so on spurious grounds.

13. Moreover Mrs Duffy tells me, and I accept, that her second letter to Mr Hardy was badly worded and the meaning ordinarily to be attributed to her words does not reflect the true position which was not that Mr Hardy would need to re-apply for membership but that if he would send her back the cheque she wrongly returned to him his membership would continue seamlessly. I take it she now realises her words conveyed a different and adverse impression. Clearly they did in the mind of Mr Hardy and understandably so in the context of what had already passed. It was hardly to be relieved by Mr Arnott’s general communication.

14. Thus on these facts I have no hesitation in finding that in effect both Mr Parkin and UKIP purported to expel Mr Hardy from the membership of branch and party. Was either entitled in law so to do?

15. Although no reference was made to either document during the evidence, during his final submissions Mr Holland, counsel for both Mr Parkin and UKIP, and upon taking instructions, also for the Stockton Branch sought to rely upon UKIP’s written constitution and the Branch’s rules to be found at Section1 pages 66 and 71 respectively in the agreed bundle. No point was taken regarding this by Mr Hardy nor do I think could there be. The following points of fact emerge:

(1) That the party is authorised to raise funds, purchase property and invest monies (clause 3) – it is therefore in law a proprietary club;

(2) that membership is open to people who are not members of any other political party which the NEC has declared incompatible with membership of UKIP (clause 4.1), that if such a member of UKIP subsequently joins such a party his membership is automatically revoked (clause 4.2), that if a UKIP member is a member of such a party such a person will be given 28 days to leave that other party (clause 4.3), that members must maintain their subscriptions (clause 4.4.), that members shall accept the party’s Constitution and rules and do nothing to undermine the party’s reputation or bring it into disrepute, or act in a way intending to cause or causing damage to the party’s interests (clause 4.5);

(3) that by clause 4.6 upon which Mr Holland places particular reliance, where constituency associations are established membership shall be of that association and by affiliation of the association then of the party – there is no issue but that the Stockton Branch equates to a constituency association for this purpose;

(4) that by clause 5.3 the constituency association has the responsibility for administering its own financial and other affairs subject to the constituency rule book approved by the NEC – Mr Holland here submits that the Branch was and is for present purposes “autonomous” so that the party is absolved from the potential liability in this matter of either the branch or its chairman – a submission I have difficulty in accepting; it is not in issue but that the branch was affiliated to the party. Branch membership must then be membership “of the party” as well as of the branch.

(5) that by clause 14 the party shall establish a discipline committee;

(6) that by clause 15 the NEC shall establish the rules governing constituency associations, disciplinary procedures and all other rules and procedures forming part of the formal management; conduct and administration of the party.

(7) that the branch rules should be read in conjunction with the party constitution which shall take precedence;

(8) that all party members are members of the branch in which they live (rule 2.1) – Mr Hardy lives and has at all material times lived in Stockton;

(9) that Rule 3 is entitled Branch Committees

(10) that “branches are responsible for their own actions “rule 3.1) - a provision further relied upon in support of the autonomy argument;

(11) that the chairman “has principal responsibility of the direction of the branch” (rule 3.8.1)

(12) that rule 7 is entitled “Disputes”;

(13) that by rule 7.1 “instances may arise when differences within a branch threatens its proper functioning. Every effort shall be made to resolve these at the local level, either by branch committee or at a full meeting of the Branch. If this does not succeed the dispute shall be referred to the regional organiser acting on behalf of the party chairman “- it is impossible to think of what transpired within the Stockton branch as other than a dispute but I have heard no evidence from any member of the branch committee, directly or indirectly or of its involvement in this matter – likewise there has been no evidence of a full meeting or for that matter any meeting of the branch attempting to resolve this dispute;

(14) that by rule 7.2 if the dispute remains irreconcilable the party chairman may suspend or dissolve the committee or dissolve the Branch in its entirety.

16. Mr Holland submits that the law of contract is to be applied. With that I agree - next that as the constitution does not provide for expulsion the Branch rules are to be applied and where they are silent as to procedure the rules of natural justice and that of a fair trial are to be applied, and where this last applies the claimant needs to prove that his case was dealt with by a reasonable and proportionate response in all the circumstances of the case. Again I agree that the constitution does not provide for expulsion in the particular circumstances of this case although I find clause 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 are not without relevance when I come to consider Mr Arnott’s general memorandum of 10th September this year. In fact such reliance upon Mr Hardy’s former membership of the BNP is in the whole context of this case patently a fig leaf the removal of which discloses an urgent desire to expel Mr Hardy at any price. Clearly Mr Arnott had no regard for this clause had it been a real reason to expel. Save for this consideration which is not without its own significance overall I accept Mr Holland’s argument so far.

17. So he contends Mr Parkin’s banning letter of 11th September 2009 was an action he was authorised by rule 3.1 to take particularly when regard is had to his “principal responsibility for the direction of the branch” under rule 3.8.1. Thus the argument runs Mr Parkin had legitimate power so to regulate branch meetings and in doing so what he did was within a reasonable and proportionate range of actions open to him. It is not for this Court, he submits, to prefer an alternative, particularly with the advantage of hindsight which is within such a range. With this last proposition I entirely concur.

18. Yet applying these principles of law as well as the ordinary meaning to be attached to rules 3.1, 3.8.1 and rule 7 (disputes) it seems to me that Mr Parkin did not have the power to act as he did and wholly failed to invoke rule 7. I do not underestimate the real difficulty of chairing a meeting attended by such a strong opponent as Mr Hardy and he could not in my judgment have been criticised for suspending one or any number of meetings summarily, nor for invoking the rule 7 disputes procedure with regard to all or any of Mr Hardy’s complaints. But instead he appears to me to have acted autocratically, taking sole not principal responsibility even if, which I doubt, the proper meaning of the phrase “direction of the branch” includes doing what he did by his letter of 11th September 2009. That speaks for itself and Mr Parkin has not suggested any alternative construction. It was his decision and his alone to banish Mr Hardy from branch meetings. That act effectively at least suspended Mr Hardy’s membership and although a less stringent test is applicable in law compared with expulsion the principles are the same and in my judgment even suspension in such terms, being for at least as long as Mr Parkin remained branch chairman, was for the same reasons as I have already provided in the context of expulsion, without authority, unreasonable and disproportionate. There is no evidence whatever of his having convened a meeting of either the branch committee or of the whole branch to consider the question of Mr Hardy’s suspension or expulsion. Plainly in March he involved Head Office but by July they seem to have left him high and dry. By September he was on his own. The letter of 11th was his and his alone, without further consultation and without giving Mr Hardy a reasonable opportunity to put forward any case of his own as to why he should not be suspended or expelled. He appears to have been both prosecutor and judge in his own cause.

19. The effect of such an act is compounded by the impression unwittingly given by Mrs Duffy but unambiguously pronounced by Mr Arnott by his general message of 10th September. The only inference sensibly to be drawn is that the senior party officers were backing and reinforcing Mr Parkin’s act and were not having Mr Hardy back.

20. Part of the “factual matrix”, as Mr Holland puts it, in my consideration of this matter is he concedes that unlike other kinds of proprietary clubs such as an allotment association or a tennis club the UKIP party is the only political party available to Mr Hardy, given his particular political views and allegiance, that the Stockton branch is the only branch to which by reason of his place of abode he could belong, and further unlike other activities of a sporting or other recreational type, political activity so long as it is conducted within a democratic framework carries its own special importance. Such considerations are in my view germane not only to the question of compensation but also to that of being treated fairly, reasonably, proportionately and in accordance with the branch rules. In each respect I find Mr Parkin, UKIP and the Stockton Branch on whose behalf to the last Mr Parkin has, through Mr Holland, maintained he exercised lawful authority, to have failed so to do. Each party is therefore in breach of his and its contractual duty to Mr Hardy.

21. I therefore hold that their purported expulsion of Mr Hardy to have been null and void and upon his payment of his £10 membership subscription for the current year his membership of the party and the branch continues uninterrupted both to the present day, and until either by lawful means he is expelled or otherwise resigns or retires.

22. Before turning to the matter of compensation and for the sake of completeness I hold that Mr Hardy has not been excluded from any public meeting as he once maintained, neither has he a valid cause of action under the Human Right’s Act as he also contended.

23. With regard to damages Mr Holland submits they should be nominal but I disagree. In effect Mr Hardy has for almost exactly 12 months been deprived of the enjoyment and satisfaction of pursuing his political aims and activity to which he has plainly been deeply committed. He would not however have held any office during that time nor I think been elected to either local or central government notwithstanding his clear ambitions. Neither do I find he is entitled to punitive damages in this case because I judge the unlawfulness of the defendants to stem from ill judgment and inattention to their own rules rather than bad faith. I therefore assess damages in the sum of £750.